A 7 year old gets raped. The father ought to have the right to kill the perp. It's hard to explain. The "civilized" society throws the perp in a cage. The uncivilized society allows the father some revenge. Which is more human?

What is human is the fundament of the matter: the anger. The sense of offense and wrongness which cries out to be rectified, that is what is human here. The question of how to address that burden is an open one. Historically, societies have readily responded to this challenge with brutalities such as death because that's all they could reasonably afford to do from a systematic point of view. Their resources were insufficient to allow for the sober caution of long-term incarceration as a general solution.

We have no similar excuse; we can afford to be careful; we can afford to let ostensibly guilty men live. Justice is always prone to error, and we here are all familiar with the various later-overturned death row cases which demonstrate it. This, and not any "lack of human character," is why most of the civilized world incarcerates rather than kills: every death sentence admits to some possibility of the state-sanctioned death of an innocent man. Your whole, "Let Billy Bob kill the man who was convicted of raping his daughter," position ignores the frequency with which Billy Bob will be killing an innocent man, and killing him with the sanction of the state for that matter. It doubles down on a defective element of the justice system, and does so entirely without need. When one knows themself to be imperfect, giving up the ability to correct one's mistakes is not wise.

Your whole, "Let Billy Bob kill the man who was convicted of raping his daughter," position ignores the frequency with which Billy Bob will be killing an innocent man, and killing him with the sanction of the state for that matter.

I agree with your thoughts on this issue...however, this is one point that requires clarification.

When Billy Bob knows the man is guilty...actually sees the crime committed.
Not getting court sanctioned approval...acting on his own sense of justice.
The man is guilty...not innocent...no doubts...zero.

Again...my point is that as a society...this type of behavior is not condoned...but on an individual level...personally...I would have no issue with killing a man who raped my 7 year old daughter. Especially, if I knew the legal system would allow this person, who may even be a repeat offender, to get out of jail again with minimal time spent.

Again...my point is that as a society...this type of behavior is not condoned...but on an individual level...personally...I would have no issue with killing a man who raped my 7 year old daughter. Especially, if I knew the legal system would allow this person, who may even be a repeat offender, to get out of jail again with minimal time spent.

Yeah, it's like, I don't approve of the death-penalty, for a number of reasons, mostly related to its detrimental effect on society. But if I knew someone who was an executioner, in a place where the only capital offense was murder, I wouldn't regard the guy, in and of himself, as a bad person.

Your whole, "Let Billy Bob kill the man who was convicted of raping his daughter," position ignores the frequency with which Billy Bob will be killing an innocent man, and killing him with the sanction of the state for that matter.

I agree with your thoughts on this issue...however, this is one point that requires clarification.

When Billy Bob knows the man is guilty...actually sees the crime committed.
Not getting court sanctioned approval...acting on his own sense of justice.
The man is guilty...not innocent...no doubts...zero.

Again...my point is that as a society...this type of behavior is not condoned...but on an individual level...personally...I would have no issue with killing a man who raped my 7 year old daughter. Especially, if I knew the legal system would allow this person, who may even be a repeat offender, to get out of jail again with minimal time spent.

I think your point and Titus' point differ. Your point seems to be that faced with an insufficient justice system (i.e. one which would swiftly release a rapist from incarceration, quite possibly to the detriment of others), and absolute certainty of guilty, you see some merit in taking matters into your own hands as a last resort. No one can be expected to abide a threat to themselves, their families, or even their communities. If the justice system legitimately fails, vigilantism may well be the only solution, provided it is engaged in in the same temperate fashion that a judicial trial ought to be (and to this extent, CentralCali is wrong in his assertion that vigilantism is always wrong).

Titus' point is rather that the father of the raped girl has a positive right to kill the man himself: "The father ought to have the right to kill the perp." This is a far more extreme (and socially-destructive) position, turning Billy Bob's last resort into Billy Bob's state-sanctioned first and only move.

A 38 year old man in Busan was given a measly 7 years for raping and molesting his 13 year old daughter.

His "defense" is that his ex-wife tried to rip money off of him which apparently turned him into a rapist due to the mental stress. Before that, his story was that his daughter had sex with her brother and she was lying about being raped by her father to hide the shame. The media is also making a big deal about his kiddie porn addiction.

Before calling for castration and vigiliante violence, why don't they simply jail these guys longer? You only get 7 years for raping a child? His own child no less? Guy should be locked up for at least a few decades.